Skip to main content

Climate Justice

#FreeAlaa

Submitted by ed on
#FreeAlaa

We at GreenNet add our voices to the urgent calls for Alaa Abd el-Fattah’s freedom. The human rights and digital rights campaigner has been on dry hunger strike in an Egyptian prison since Sunday. The desperate hope was that while the eyes of the world are on Egypt the British delegation to COP27 would secure Alaa's safe release from prison and transport to Britain, where he has citizenship.

In happier days Alaa helped GreenNet on website projects, encouraging us to develop in Drupal. We’ve kept in contact with his family through APC while his mistreatment at the hands of the el-Sisi government (and previous governments) of Egypt has grown worse.

GreenNet collective members joined the vigils in London on Sunday. While it is encouraging to see Alaa’s family’s campaign in the media during COP27 and in the mouths of politicians, Alaa’s situation is critical.

We are also deeply concerned for the welfare of Alaa's sister Sanaa since she has bravely returned to Egypt, and for the thousands of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in Egypt.

Please support the campaign in any way you can at https://freealaa.net/take-action One easy action is to email your MP.

[[{"fid":"5888","view_mode":"full","fields":{"format":"full","alignment":"","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"#FreeAlaa","field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":"#FreeAlaa","external_url":""},"link_text":null,"type":"media","field_deltas":{"2":{"format":"full","alignment":"","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"#FreeAlaa","field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":"#FreeAlaa","external_url":""}},"attributes":{"alt":"#FreeAlaa","title":"#FreeAlaa","class":"media-element file-full","data-delta":"2"}}]]

 

Energy round-up: carbon markets have failed - by : Stephen Devlin

Submitted by howard on

Photo credit:   freefoto

September 3, 2015 // By: Stephen Devlin

In theory, the world has the solution to soaring emissions – it’s called carbon pricing.

Carbon pricing is an attempt to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by charging polluters to cover their external costs. Most economists and policy-makers argue the only efficient way to do this is through establishing a market for carbon. This is done through an emissions trading scheme (ETS): a fixed number of emissions permits are issued and a cap is set on the total emissions allowed.

Those who then pollute more – oil and gas firms and others who find it harder to make cuts, for example – can cover their higher emissions by buying more permits from those who make reductions easier. But it’s also possible to cover emissions by purchasing offsets from foreign ETS.

In fact, a new report released by the New Zealand government reveals that almost all of their emission reduction obligations for 2014 were met by paying for offsets in transition countries such as Russia and Ukraine, cheaper options because emissions cuts are easier to make there.

The problem is that many analysts believe these foreign emissions reductions would have happened anyway. Cutting waste from coal or pipeline leakages, for example, is win-win for industry as it also keeps their costs down. As a result, the impact of New Zealand’s ETS is close to zero. This also applies to the EU ETS, in which about a third of total emissions reductions come from international offsets. Not only has this overestimated emissions reductions, it may have also contributed to the collapse of carbon prices. In both New Zealand and EU, markets remain far below the estimated cost of carbon. The actual social cost of carbon emissions is far higher than emissions permit prices imply. This also undermines long-term incentives to innovate as it’s much cheaper to just pay for your pollution.

But reforming emissions trading schemes has been a headache so far. Companies benefit from low prices as offsets depress the market and windfall profits – as permits are issued for free – and those unused can be sold on. Chances are they are not looking to give up paying far below the actual cost of pollution and making a profit from selling excess permits, too. At least in other carbon markets this problem is tackled by auctioning permits.

Financial incentives are a powerful force, but for carbon pricing the market design is flawed.

 

Reposted with many thanks from the New Economics Foundation (NEF) http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/energy-round-up-carbon-markets-h…

#Budget2015: Welfare for Fossil Fuels, Austerity for the rest

Submitted by howard on

3:45 pm by mika

Today, Osborne announced massive tax breaks and subsidies for North Sea oil companies. A new £1.3 billion in subsidies will be handed to oil companies, with the burden transferred to the public. £1.3 billion could cover the costs of employing another 20,000 nurses in the NHS.

osborne-smileIn austerity Britain, there are plenty of people who are genuinely suffering. But oil corporations are not – as new research by Oil Change International and Platform shows.

The analysis of government statistics on profitability shows that, between 2008 and 2014, when the oil price was high, oil companies in the UK North Sea achieved an eye-watering 33% rate of return. Companies in other sectors – excluding banks – averaged 10% over the same period.

A sensible approach might be to put some of this excess profit away for a rainy day: everyone knows the oil price is cyclical.

Instead oil lobbyists conveniently forget that windfall: they point out that the industry received £5.8 billion ($9.2 bn) less than it spent in 2014. Official statistics are not yet available, so that figure can’t be checked. But assuming it’s correct, we found that between April 2009 and March 2014, companies netted £47.3 billion ($74.7 bn) in free cash flow, or £9.5 billion ($15 bn) per year – more than enough to offset any recent loss.

north_sea_profits2So in reality, it’s not about survival: it’s about using public money to sustain enormous rates of profit.

Less than two months before an election, this would seem a great opportunity for the opposition. Austerity, climate change – the government should not put money into a wealthy and dirty industry.

But instead, UK politicians have been falling over themselves in a generosity competition towards the oil industry. Sadly, Labour and the Scottish Nationalist Party have instead demanded that Osborne should do more.

Politicians’ sympathy for oil is rationalised in terms of jobs, contributions to the economy and energy security. But the industry employs just 0.1% of the workforce. Even at its peak, it provided less than 2% of government revenue, and with lower oil prices it’s less than 1%. And as for energy security, oil is traded on global markets: UK-produced oil does not stay in the UK. [3]

Furthermore, the answer to fears about those 40,000 jobs would be for companies to accept a normal rate of profit rather than demanding an excessive one.

Osborne did as the industry demanded, cutting the Supplementary Charge from 30% to 20%. This is the only tax oil companies pay on any fields developed after 1993, apart from Corporation Tax. They also want him to increase tax breaks, including for exploration.

The industry were already getting up to £760 million ($1.2 billion) in tax breaks, as research by Oil Change International and the Overseas Development Institute found in November. These breaks – which could instead cover the salaries of an additional 15,000 nurses – fit the UK government’s definition of fossil fuel subsidies.

At the New York climate summit in September, David Cameron called for “fighting against the economically and environmentally perverse fossil fuel subsidies, which distort free markets and rip off taxpayers.” Perhaps he should start the fight closer to home.

This blog was written jointly by Mika Minio-Paluello with Greg Muttitt of Oil Change International

http://platformlondon.org/2015/03/18/budget2015-welfare-for-fossil-fuel…